DOCSLIB.ORG

Why You Do What You Do -- Printout -- TIME 3/30/11 4:33 PM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why You Do What You Do -- Printout -- TIME 3/30/11 4:33 PM Why You Do What You Do -- Printout -- TIME 3/30/11 4:33 PM Back to Article Click to Print Monday, Aug. 01, 1977 Why You Do What You Do The concepts are startling—and disturbing. Conflict between parents and children is biologically inevitable. Children are bora deceitful. All human acts—even saving a stranger from drowning or donating a million dollars to the poor—may be ultimately selfish. Morality and justice, far from being the triumphant product of human progress, evolved from man's animal past, and are securely rooted in the genes. These are some of the teachings of sociobiology, a new and highly controversial scientific discipline that seeks to establish that social behavior—human as well as animal—has a biological basis. Its most striking tenet: human behavior is genetically based, the result of millions of years of evolution. Some sociobiologists go so far as to suggest that there may be human genes for such behavior as conformism, homosexuality and spite. Carried to an extreme, sociobiology holds that all forms of life exist solely to serve the purposes of DNA, the coded master molecule that determines the nature of all organisms and is the stuff of genes. As British Ethologist Richard Dawkins describes the role and drive of the genes, they "swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence we are their survival machines." Sociobiologists—whose growing ranks include some 250 biologists, zoologists and social scientists— argue that without consideration of biology, the study of human culture makes no sense. Indeed, sociobiology has significant implications for most areas of human concern—from education to relations between the sexes. Says Harvard Physicist Gerald Holton: "It's a breathtaking ambition . as if Sigmund Freud had set out to subsume all of Darwin, Joyce, Einstein, Whitehead and Lenin." Robert Trivers, a Harvard biologist and leading sociobiology theorist, makes a bold prediction: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,915181,00.html Page 1 of 11 Why You Do What You Do -- Printout -- TIME 3/30/11 4:33 PM Robert Trivers, a Harvard biologist and leading sociobiology theorist, makes a bold prediction: "Sooner or later, political science, law, economics, psychology, psychiatry and anthropology will all be branches of sociobiology." These and other claims by proponents of sociobiology have made it one of the most inflammatory doctrines ta emerge from the campuses in decades. Since 1975, when Harvard Zoologist Edward Wilson's mammoth 700-page book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis brought the new science to public attention, the controversy has spread beyond Harvard—where it originated—dividing faculty departments and disrupting academic conventions. Angry opponents denounce "soso biology" as reactionary political doctrine disguised as science. Their fear: it may be used to show that some races are inferior, that male dominance over women is natural and that social progress is impossible because of the pull of the genes. By far the most vocal critics have been Marxist and other scholars with political points to make. University of Chicago Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins dismisses sociobiology as "genetic capitalism"—an attempt to defend the current structures of Western society as natural and inevitable. Jerome Schneewind, a philosopher at Manhattan's Hunter College, calls it "mushy metaphor . a souped-up version of Hobbes." Harvard Evolutionary Biologist Richard Lewontin is earthier; he thinks sociobiology is "bullshit." Edward Wilson has been picketed, and at Harvard, the left-wing Committee Against Racism has called sociobiology "dangerously racist." The committee also charged that the new science would give comfort to the supporters of Psychologist Arthur Jensen, a leading proponent of another controversial theory: that racial differences in IQs have a genetic basis. Wilson angrily called that attack "slander," and even Lewontin came to his defense, conceding that "sociobiology is not a racist doctrine." But he added, "Any kind of genetic determinism can and does feed other kinds, including the belief that some races are superior to others." Opponents of sociobiology were heartened this spring when Harvard failed to give tenure to Biologist Trivers, though denying that his work in sociobiology was the reason. It was a surprising move that Trivers interpreted as an invitation to leave the university—which he plans to do. Still he insists: "I don't think they will be successful in stopping me or slowing down the work. It has spread too far, to too many people, and to far too many studies." Indeed, sociobiology is establishing itself as part of the scientific spectrum. In June, for example, academics from around the nation gathered at San Francisco State University for a two-day meeting on the implications of sociobiology. Sociobiologists call their doctrine "the completion of the Darwinian revolution"—the application of classic evolutionary theory and modern studies of genetics to animal behavior. Darwin's theory, now http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,915181,00.html Page 2 of 11 Why You Do What You Do -- Printout -- TIME 3/30/11 4:33 PM classic evolutionary theory and modern studies of genetics to animal behavior. Darwin's theory, now virtually unchallenged in the world of science, holds that all organisms evolve by natural selection— those that are better adapted to the environment survive and reproduce; the rest die out. Thus organisms are constantly perfected by the cruel competition to survive. Sociobiologists believe the behavior that promotes survival of the winners in the evolutionary game is passed on by their genes. Many recent theorists—such as Nobel-prizewinning Ethologist Konrad Lorenz and Scots Biologist V.C. Wynne-Edwards—have focused on the group or species as the primary unit of selection. Darwin wrote that it was the individual organism. But Sociobiologists believe it is the genes themselves that conduct the life-or-death evolutionary struggle. This gene-based view of life is compatible with a finding made independently by researchers in a widely divergent branch of science. Rutgers Biochemist George Pieczenik has discovered patterns in DNA coding that he sees as evidence of selection occurring at the molecular level (TIME, April 4). "What this means," he says, "is that the DNA sequences exist to protect themselves and their own information. It's not the organism that counts. The DNA sequences don't really care if they have to look like a lowly assistant professor or a giraffe." Yet sociobiology did not arise from molecular studies but as an answer to a century-old gap in Darwinian theory: Darwin could not fully explain why some organisms help other members of their species. His theory held that every organism fights for its own survival and chance to reproduce, not that of others. Since altruistic behavior reduces an organism's chances to survive, evolution should be expected to breed it out of all species. Still, some birds risk their lives for the flock by crying out to warn of the presence of a predator—thus chancing attracting the attention of the enemy and being singled out for attack. Dolphins sometimes try to save injured dolphins from drowning. Social insects serve the entire community, some going so far as to give their lives to protect the colony from invaders. Sociobiology tries to resolve the dilemma. Its solution: altruism is actually genetic selfishness. The bird that warns of an approaching hawk is protecting nearby relatives that have many of the same genes it has—thus increasing the chance that some of those genes will survive. Sterile female insects work and give their lives to promote the spread of genes they share with their sisters. Some 20 years ago, British Biologist J.B.S. Haldane anticipated the gene-based view of sociobiology when, tongue in cheek, he announced that he would lay down his life for two brothers or eight cousins. His reasoning: the survival of two full siblings (each with about half of his genes identical to Haldane's) or the group of cousins (each with about one-eighth of his genes the same as Haldane's) made the decision genetically acceptable. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,915181,00.html Page 3 of 11 Why You Do What You Do -- Printout -- TIME 3/30/11 4:33 PM According to sociobiologists, evolution produces organisms that automatically follow this mathematical logic, as if they were computers, totting up the genetic costs or benefits of helping out relatives who bear many of the same genes. If aiding the relatives increases the chances that familial genes will prosper and propagate, the organism will act altruistically—even to the extent of giving up its life, as a parent may, for example, by rushing into a burning house to save a child. Yet in humans, this genetic push is less binding; sociobiologists believe that human social behavior is largely controlled by facultative genes—the ones that can be influenced by environment to change their effects. Thus there is room for cowardly and selfish—as well as unselfish—behavior. British Biologist William Hamilton in 1964 explained how altruism could help an individual spread his genes; he argued that the principle explained the social life of insects. In all ants, bees and wasps, daughters of the queen share an average of three-quarters of their genes (see diagram). Because the daughters are more related to each other than they would be to their own offspring, said Hamilton, it is in their genetic self-interest not to breed but to assist the queen in producing more daughters. Thus the females evolved as sterile workers who cooperate socially for genetically selfish reasons.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins Is Another
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT ooks about science tend to fall into two categories: those that explain it to lay people in the hope of cultivat- Bing a wide readership, and those that try to persuade fellow scientists to support a new theory, usually with equations. Books that achieve both — changing science and reach- ing the public — are rare. Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) was one. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is another. From the moment of its publication 40 years ago, it has been a sparkling best-seller and a TERRY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES COLLECTION/GETTY SMITH/THE LIFE IMAGES TERRY scientific game-changer. The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theoriz- ing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries. A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species — the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960s, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz — but (uncon- sciously) so that its genes go on. Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes. No other explana- tion makes sense, although some insist that there are other ways to tell the story (see K. Laland et al. Nature 514, 161–164; 2014). What stood out was Dawkins’s radical insistence that the digital information in a gene is effectively immortal and must be the primary unit of selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel C. Dennett
    KINDS OF MINDS Toward an Understanding of Consciousness DANIEL C. DENNETT A Member of the Perseus Books Group -iii- The Science Masters Series is a global publishing venture consisting of original science books written by leading scientists and published by a worldwide team of twenty-six publishers assembled by John Brockman. The series was conceived by Anthony Cheetham of Orion Publishers and John Brockman of Brockman Inc., a New York literary agency, and developed in coordination with BasicBooks. The Science Masters name and marks are owned by and licensed to the publisher by Brockman Inc. Copyright © 1996 by Daniel Dennett. Published by BasicBooks A Member of the Perseus Books Group All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address Basic Books, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299. Designed by Joan Greenfield ISBN 0-465-07351-4 (pbk.) 99 00 01 ❖/RRD 10 9 8 7 6 5 -iv- CONTENTS Preface vii 1 What Kinds of Minds Are There? 1 Knowing Your Own Mind 1 We Mind-Havers, We Minders 3 Words and Minds 8 The Problem of Incommunicative Minds 12 2 Intentionality: The Intentional Systems Approach 19 Simple Beginnings: The Birth of Agency 19 Adopting the Intentional Stance 27 The Misguided Goal of Propositional Precision 41 Original and Derived Intentionality 50 3 The Body and Its Minds 57 From Sensitivity to Sentience? 57 The
    [Show full text]
  • Harman, G. & Gordon, D., Philosophy 380, Princeton University
    PHI 380 Explaining Values Syllabus Fall Term 2003-04 Instructors • Gilbert Harman, Philosophy, 118 1879 Hall, x4301, [email protected] • David Gordon, Philosophy, 227 1879 Hall, x1486, [email protected] Description and Objectives Why do many people even today condemn promiscuity in women more than similar promiscuity in men? What explains seemingly altruistic motivation? Where do moral rules come from and why are they followed? What accounts for how people think about abortion? Do people act morally as a result of moral reasoning, or is moral reasoning simply a rationalization of emotions? Do people suppose that a person’s moral worth can be a matter of “moral luck”? How does a child develop a conscience? Do some people have better characters than others? How do the moralities of different cultures vary? Are there moral universals? Various explanations might be offered of ordinary moral values: that they are based in reason, that they are based in emotion, that they are the result of social pressures, that they are the result of biological evolution, that they are the result of more or less arbitrary historical facts. In this course we consider a variety of things about morality that might be explained and a variety of explanations of them. Our goal is to try to assess these explanations, to decide how plausible they are, when they compete and when they are complementary, what evidence is relevant to them, and what normative implications they would have if true. 1 Course Requirements Lectures are Monday and Wednesday at 1:30-2:20 p.m. in Jones 113, plus one precept to be assigned.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Psychology of Self-Deception
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2011) 34,1–56 doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001354 The evolution and psychology of self-deception William von Hippel School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia [email protected] http://www.psy.uq.edu.au/directory/index.html?id¼1159 Robert Trivers Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 [email protected] http://anthro.rutgers.edu/ index.php?option¼com_content&task¼view&id¼102&Itemid¼136 Abstract: In this article we argue that self-deception evolved to facilitate interpersonal deception by allowing people to avoid the cues to conscious deception that might reveal deceptive intent. Self-deception has two additional advantages: It eliminates the costly cognitive load that is typically associated with deceiving, and it can minimize retribution if the deception is discovered. Beyond its role in specific acts of deception, self-deceptive self-enhancement also allows people to display more confidence than is warranted, which has a host of social advantages. The question then arises of how the self can be both deceiver and deceived. We propose that this is achieved through dissociations of mental processes, including conscious versus unconscious memories, conscious versus unconscious attitudes, and automatic versus controlled processes. Given the variety of methods for deceiving others, it should come as no surprise that self-deception manifests itself in a number of different psychological processes, and we discuss various types of self-deception. We then discuss the interpersonal versus intrapersonal nature of self-deception before considering the levels of consciousness at which the self can be deceived.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Psychology – 2011
    Evolutionary Psychology www.epjournal.net – 2011. 9(4): 526-531 ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ Book Review All the Better to Fool You With, My Dear A review of Robert Trivers, The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. Basic Books: New York, 2011, 397 pp., US$28.00, ISBN 978-0-465-02755-2. David P. Barash, University of Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle, WA, USA, Email: [email protected]. I well remember the revolutionary fervor of the late 1960s and early 1970s when I was a graduate student in zoology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1966-1970). I’m not thinking of the anti-war political turmoil – although my grad school memories are thoroughly infused with the mordant odor of tear gas – but rather, of what Thomas Kuhn famously labeled “revolutionary science.” Jump-started by George C. Williams’ book, Adaptation and Natural Selection, and especially William D. Hamilton’s seminal work on inclusive fitness, we nascent sociobiologists found ourselves riding a truly [r]evolutionary scientific and intellectual tsunami, and without a doubt the biggest wave-maker was a young rebel named Robert Trivers. In a handful of truly extraordinary, paradigm-shifting papers, Trivers laid out many of the paths that the rest of us have subsequently followed, and which for some involved morphing into “evolutionary psychology” (a term I accept, incidentally, but only grudgingly, for several reasons: 1. Despite efforts at disciplinary hair-splitting, evolutionary psychology to my mind is nothing but sociobiology applied to Homo sapiens, and 2. I look forward to the time when the designation itself goes extinct, attendant upon the recognition that all psychology is and must be evolutionary).
    [Show full text]
  • Flattering to Deceive the Second Half
    BOOKS ET AL. EVOLUTIONARY BEHAVIOR ary interpretation of self- The Folly of Fools contentious topic could deception, the book takes a The Logic of Deceit and be seen as mere opinion, dramatic change of tack in Self-Deception in Human Life the behavioral ecologist Flattering to Deceive the second half. There the Trivers makes a surpris- by Robert Trivers author presents a number of ing comeback by suggest- Basic Books (Perseus), Johan J. Bolhuis sociopolitical applications of ing a signifi cant relation- New York, 2011. 413 pp. $28, his ideas. He discusses a baf- C$32.50. ISBN 9780465027552. ship between parasite load iko Tinbergen presaged it, E. O. Wil- fl ing scope of topics, ranging and the number of reli- son started it, but the two towering from the Challenger disaster gions “per unit area.” The Nfi gures in the behavioral ecology rev- to the confl ict in the Middle East. An engag- underlying idea is that the need for protec- olution of the 1970s were undoubtedly Robert ing writer, Trivers provides many interesting tion against parasites will promote within- Trivers and Bill Hamilton. Trivers, an evolu- ideas. But if they constitute science, it is of a group cohesion and hostility toward out- tionary biologist now at Rutgers University, rather unconventional, democratic nature. siders. Religion then provides “substitute begins The Folly of Fools reminiscing about Unlike many evolutionary psychologists, logics with similar effects”—or, as Trivers his seminal theoretical work from the early who seem to hold that their favored theories formulates it in characteristic fashion, “We days of behavioral ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Parental Investment and Sexual Selection
    II l'.tlcnl.tl jnvcsllncnt and scxlIO!I )c!Cl:lion !J3 Variance in reproductive succe~s Parental investment and Darwin defined sexual selection as ( I) competition within one sex for members of the opposite sex anel (2) differential choice by sexual selection members of one sex for members of the opposite sex, and he pointed out that this usuaIIy meant males competing Wilh each ROBERT L. TRIVERSt other for females and females choosing some males rathcr than. others. To study these phenomena one needs accurate data on differential rcproductive success analysed by sex. Accurale data on female reproductive success are available for many species, but Introduction similar data on males are very difficult 10 gather, even in those Charles Darwin's (1871) treatment of lhe topic of sex ual selection species that tend towards monogamy. The human species ilhrslrates was sometimes confused because he lacked a general framework this point. In any society it is rdatively easy to assign accurately within whidl to relate the variables he pcrccived to be important: the children to their biological mothers, but an element of uncer· sex-linked inheritance, sex ratio at conception, differential mortal­ tainty attaches 10 the assignment of children to their biological ily, parental care, and the form of the breeding system (mono· fathers. For example, Henry Harpending (personal communication) gamy, polygyny, polyandry, or promiscuity). This confusion has gathered biochemical data on the Kalahari Bushmen showing permitted others to attempt to show that Darwin's terminology that about two per cent of the children in that society do not was imprecise, that he misinterpreted the function of some struc­ belong to the falher to whom they are commonly attribuled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self-Deception
    The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self-Deception ROBERT TRIVERS Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, 131 George Street, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1414, USA ABSTRACT: An evolutionary theory of self-deception—the active misrepresen- tation of reality to the conscious mind—suggests that there may be multiple sources of self-deception in our own species, with important interactions be- tween them. Self-deception (along with internal conflict and fragmentation) may serve to improve deception of others; this may include denial of ongoing deception, self-inflation, ego-biased social theory, false narratives of intention, and a conscious mind that operates via denial and projection to create a self- serving world. Self-deception may also result from internal representations of the voices of significant others, including parents, and may come from internal genetic conflict, the most important for our species arising from differentially imprinted maternal and paternal genes. Selection also favors suppressing neg- ative phenotypic traits. Finally, a positive form of self-deception may serve to orient the organism favorably toward the future. Self-deception can be ana- lyzed in groups and is done so here with special attention to its costs. INTRODUCTION An important component of a mature system of social theory is a sub-theory con- cerning self-deception (lying to oneself, or biased information flow within an indi- vidual, analogous to deception between individuals). This sub-theory can always be turned back on the main theory itself. There can be little doubt about the need for such a theory where our own species is concerned—and of the need for solid, scien- tific facts which bear on the theory.
    [Show full text]
  • P3,373-~Y Deceit and Self-Deception
    Chapter 18 P3,373-~Y Deceit and Self-Deception Robert Trivers Abstract Deception is a universal feature of life, at all levels and in all relation­ ships both within species and between species, inside individuals and outside, with strong effects on both deceiver and deceived. Being detected often results in a sharp reversal of fortune for the deceiver thereby intensifying selection to deceive successfully. In encounters between human strangers, nervousness, signs of control and of cognitive load can all serve as cues of deception but cognitive load appears to be the most important. Self-deception is defined as hiding true information from the conscious mind in the unconscious, and is illustrated by classical experimental work. Selection to deceive can favor self-deception, the better to hide the deception and separately to reduce its cognitive costs. Four examples are described. There is a general tendency toward self-inflation in humans, the better to give off a positive image. Conscious thought suppression, studied via fMRI, shows that one area of the brain has been coopted to suppress memory formation elsewhere in the brain. When people reach age 60, they fail to attend to negative social reality, and this old-age positivity may give immune benefits. Across primates there is a strong positive association between relative size of the neocortex and frequency of deceptive acts in nature. If the relationship holds within species, we may expect relatively intelli­ gent humans to be prone to self-deception. There is such a thing as imposed self­ deception, in which we act out the system of self-deception of another.
    [Show full text]
  • A Muster of Veterans
    as great as many differences between spe- cies-thus obviating any simple formal tax- onomy of social systems corresponding to those in morphology and biochemistry. He also logs in with a description of howler- monkey competitive infanticide, its frequen- cy "suggesting to us that the rate of take- A Muster of Veterans overs by alien males, displacement of the resident male, and subsequent killing of infants less than six months of age is density Man and Beast Revisated. MICHAEL H. ROB- graceful and funny-yes, funny-exposition dependent." The pattern is remarkably sim- INSON and LIONEL TIGER, Eds. Smithsonian on the history of the planet from the Big ilar to the corresponding phenomenon in Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1991. xxiv, Bang to the dinosaurs' demise. Richard hanuman langurs (Presbytis entellus) as de- 386 pp., illus. Paper, $16.95. From a symposium. Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and scribed by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and confirms The Blind Watchmaker, argues in his chapter, one of sociobiology's most important (and In 1969 a then-unusual symposium was "Darwin triumphant," that Darwinian nat- disturbing) predictions. convened by the Smithsonian and the Na- ural selection is a universal law that, like the Phyllis Dolhinow, who has with increas- tional Zoo. Called Man and Beast, it rode the laws of physics, would hold on any planet ing strain resisted this adaptive explanation crest of a wave then just breaking, which evolving life. In the realm ofmemoirs, Sher- oflangur infanticide, nevertheless gives here would make the long-debated question of wood Washburn congratulates himself on an otherwise useful review of infancy and our place among the animals more compel- having correctly anticipated back in 1969, mother-infant relations in P.
    [Show full text]
  • INQUIRY - UO Research Journal
    INQUIRY - UO Research Journal A magazine highlighting research at the University of Oregon Fall 1999, Volume V, Number 1 A Message About Research Tiny Worm Provides Big Insights into Life and Death UO research team exploring the genetics of a worm advances fight against colon cancer in humans Better Learning through "Green" Chemistry Instructor revises laboratory course to be more environmentally friendly Piggybank Economics New economic studies target kids' spending and saving habits Speaking in Tongues Linguist helping northwest tribes hold onto their languages, cultural heritage http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/f99/ (1 of 2)3/6/2005 2:19:40 AM INQUIRY - UO Research Journal Everyday Mind-reading Researcher investigating empathy finds men can be as sensitive as women -- for a price Becoming What We Are Scientific disciplines converging on a new understanding of humans and our "social" brains Tech Transfer Update : UO-connected High-Tech Company Blossoming, Catches Intel's Eye Back Issues About INQUIRY... Return to University of Oregon News and Calendar Page. http://comm.uoregon.edu/inquiry/f99/ (2 of 2)3/6/2005 2:19:40 AM A Message About Research Fall 1999 A Message About Research From Tom Dyke Vice Provost for Research Never before have the benefits of knowledge for society been as clear as they are today. University- based research has contributed enormously to our knowledge and understanding -- as the six stories in the following pages make very clear. Biologists studying a simple worm find genes that may help stop a deadly cancer responsible for thousands of human deaths each year. A psychologist exploring empathy sheds light on the motivations that make us attune ourselves to those around us.
    [Show full text]
  • Criticism of Evolutionary Psychology
    Contents Articles Evolutionary psychology 1 History of evolutionary psychology 27 Theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology 30 Psychological adaptation 36 Adaptive bias 38 Cognitive module 39 Dual inheritance theory 42 Evolutionary developmental psychology 53 Human behavioral ecology 57 Instinct 60 Modularity of mind 63 Cultural universal 67 Consciousness 70 Evolutionary linguistics 86 Evolutionary psychology of religion 92 Criticism of evolutionary psychology 96 Standard social science model 106 Evolutionary educational psychology 109 References Article Sources and Contributors 115 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 117 Article Licenses License 118 Evolutionary psychology 1 Evolutionary psychology Psychology • Outline • History • Subfields Basic types • Abnormal • Biological • Cognitive • Comparative • Cultural • Differential • Developmental • Evolutionary • Experimental • Mathematical • Personality • Positive • Quantitative • Social Applied psychology • Applied behavior analysis • Clinical • Community • Consumer • Educational • Environmental • Forensic • Health • Industrial and organizational • Legal • Military • Occupational health • Political • Religion • School • Sport Lists • Disciplines • Organizations • Psychologists • Psychotherapies Evolutionary psychology 2 • Publications • Research methods • Theories • Timeline • Topics Psychology portal Part of a series on Evolutionary biology Diagrammatic representation of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor. • Evolutionary biology portal •
    [Show full text]